- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came across this today on LDS.org: “A friend … wished to know whether we … considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the authorities of the Church was apostasy. … We replied that we had not stated that an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the authorities constituted apostasy; … but we could not conceive of a man publishing those differences of opinion, and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce upon the people to produce division and strife, and to place the acts and counsels of the authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term. We further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the authorities through a want of understanding, he had to be exceedingly careful how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take advantage of him, and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy, and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to govern His Church” (Deseret News, 3 Nov. 1869, p. 457).
So, seeing this I wondered — what do you make of this? How best can we be in disagreement and stand for what we believe without butting heads, so to speak, with the Church?
I can give you an example that I have used. I say that I don’t feel the commandment on polygamy was from God. I am not telling God he can’t command polygamy. I am just saying I have not had the spirit tell me it was of God and I feel just like many of the church leaders that first heard about it and they found it repulsive.
It seems to me that they are saying (and Elder Christopherson has said as much in relation to supporting gay marriage) that you can’t go tooting your horn about it nor telling the church they must change.
I just don’t engage them in any kind of discussion about things I disagree with, unless it’s unavoidable. Even then, I get out of the conversation as fast as I can. while giving some kind of vague hope of a return to full activity at some point. Really no one ever comes up to me and makes me disagree with them, or share my beliefs. It’s only when they ask me to do things, like teach classes, accept callings, explain “where I’m at with the church” that these issues even come up. If you just focus on what you are willing or unwilling to do, you don’t have to confront these issues unless you are proactive in doing so — and you don’t need to be proactive.
It’s best to not offend people with contrarian views really. And it can jeopardize your standing in the church, our privileges, your options for the future. Better to keep your opinions to yourself.
I thought it would be interesting to look up the original source material to see if it offered any more information. The original article did offer up a case study of sorts. Here’s a link to What is Apostasy?The example given in the article points to (William E.) McLellin, (John F.) Boynton, (William) Law, and others. My guesses are in parenthesis. The article says:
Quote:They began by entertaining what they doubtless called honest differences of opinion respecting the counsel which Joseph gave; but they ended by becoming undisguised apostates. It was wonderful the sensitiveness those men felt for liberty. Joseph had suddenly become an odious tyrant in their eyes, and they stood forth as the champions of freedom. They were eager to disenthrall the masses from the subjugation in which, according to their views, they were held by him; and they would have been pleased, for a time at least, to have had the privilege of remaining in the Church. But every one, who had any of the Spirit of the Lord, saw, that it was “License they meant, when liberty they cried;” and they were expelled from the Church.
There are some other interesting points in the article but I didn’t want to strain people’s patience by reposting the article in its entirely. The link is there for the curious, it’s not that long of an article.
I think it boils down to when someone shifts from saying “I believe that…” and ventures into the realm of “I believe that… and you should believe it too.” In other words seeking to become a new voice of authority. I realize that creates a bit of a double standard, but I believe recognizing authority is what’s at issue here. It might be their way of saying if you want free reign to proselyte your opinion, start your own church, this one’s ours.
Of course this is subject to leadership roulette. You could be in a ward where no one bats an eye when you state a differing opinion or you could be in a ward where you’re called into the bishop’s office and reprimanded for stating your opinion. Many leaders don’t even know how apostasy is defined and may react from their gut as opposed to searching out the policy. Even in cases where leaders know the policy the language is subjective enough that if people really wanted to they could arrive at their preferred conclusion.
My own opinions
“…seeking… to enforce upon the people to produce division and strife…” – That’s strong language and I can safely say I’ve never come close to that.
“and to place the acts and counsels of the authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light” – “If possible.” I got a good chuckle out of that.
“License they meant, when liberty they cried;” – Religious privilege they meant, when religious freedom they cried.
:angel: :angel: :angel: 1869 – Can we revisit the definition of apostasy? I suppose by putting this on lds.org it might as well be the 2016 definition of apostasy but language evolves over time. I prefer this definition for apostasy: thy natural magic and dire property, on wholesome spirit usurp immediately.
I think it is wise to try to not butt heads with the church. It’s a losing battle. As Nibbler points out, a local leader might take some license with the definition of apostasy and interpret it differently that I might. The latest definition I am aware of is this: Quote:“Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.”
(
https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-statement-addresses-priesthood-doctrine-questions?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-statement-addresses-priesthood-doctrine-questions?lang=eng To me this means I can say I support civil/legal gay marriage but I can’t say that I think the church is wrong in not recognizing or performing such marriages nor can I advocate that the church change it’s stance. Frankly, I’ve never had the opportunity in a classroom setting to say anything about gay marriage, although I have offered my opinion in private to other members (many of whom agree). My bishop is probably fine with my opinion (he has a gay son), and I think my SP is fine with me having the opinion – but that doesn’t apply to your bishop/SP.
Bottom line for me is that I don’t find it necessary to express all of my opinions on any subject. I am quite opinionated and it generally doesn’t serve anyone well for me to share them.
I think apostasy is where they are drawing a line in the sand because they don’t know what else to do to try to protect the fold. I can see it is needed in some cases, and I think some people over react and think it is needed when it sometimes isn’t. SnowEyes wrote:We further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the authorities through a want of understanding,
I think most people in the church would agree with this idea…that we can disagree and have opinions and authorities aren’t perfect or infallible.
Quote:…he had to be exceedingly careful how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take advantage of him, and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy, and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to govern His Church” (Deseret News, 3 Nov. 1869, p. 457).
I think this kind of response is the “story” they make to try to frame things and explain in religious speak why it is a danger.
I don’t disagree with it necessarily. Some people may become very critical, and start to lose trust with leaders.
I think it is mostly about trust.
A person can have a different opinion, but still trust the leaders are doing OK and be willing to support them and not rock the boat. That is allowed in church, and the amount of rocking will be different for some people than others. Some people get sea sick easier than others.
But a person that loses the trust of leaders and is against the group…they can become a problem for the edifying and spiritual growth and mission of what is being done. If actions are vocalized so that others’ trust is impacted…well…the boat may need to be steadied.
(what I wish is that sometimes when people get scared and cry apostasy of others over little stuff…that leaders would be as willing to tell the group to allow different opinions as they are to address the person to tell them to stop broadcasting differences. Sometimes the group needs to be told to settle down…it takes a strong leader to stand up for the unique individual and make them feel welcome in the boat…that doesn’t happen enough).
It isn’t just about “differing opinions”. It is what an individual does about those differences and how they handle it, and how it impacts others.
Trust is key in the motivation, I think. I don’t think apostasy is done out of love for the individual. It is done for the boat.
SnowEyes wrote:How best can we be in disagreement and stand for what we believe without butting heads, so to speak, with the Church?
I try very hard to not present my differences a hard differences. I endeavor to keep the differences soft and malleable – open to conversation and correction. If in a SS lesson I might ask about a concern that a “friend” of mine has. This tends to depersonalize the situation. Even if the concern is attacked by the group it is not an attack against me personally. Sometimes I present my ideas from a position of uncertainty like saying, “is it possible ….” Even then I have sometimes been completely rebuffed and shut down. In the particular instance I am thinking about I asked if the young Jesus could have been thoughtless and inconsiderate to his parents feelings when he failed to stay with the group (much like any young person). The answer was that that was not possible because JS apparently said that Jesus was prepared to rule entire nations even from this young age. I wanted to say, “how would JS in 1840 know about the youth of Jesus in the meridian of time?”. Instead I swallowed my pride, waiting until after class, and approached the teacher to ask genuinely where JS had said that. I pretended to be really interested as I was discovering something new. I thanked her for providing the information and left.
SnowEyes wrote:We further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the authorities through a want of understanding,
This quote somewhat encapsulates it for me. I attempt to frame all of my differences of opinion as a lack of understanding. Once the standard Mormon answers are given then I cannot press it very far without being seen to have hard differences or being obstinate and intractable.
Others might be able to be more assertive in defending their opinions because of a local culture of tolerance, or because they have more church credibility than I do, or other factors that I have failed to account for – but this is how I have been able to at least raise a difference or two without necessarily making waves.
Another way to frame it up as if its an issue that has differences of opinion associated with it…. Some people believe this, while others believe this — how do you reconcile these viewpoints? When they come out with a TBM answer, you say “but the people who see it differently will often argue that such and such is true” — which then prompts more TBM answers. You don’t have to personally agree or disagree with the TBM answer. You will find certain people in the non-traditional camp actually nodding their heads when you present the counter-arguments to the TBM perspectives to the traditional believer. They got the message The people who weren’t sure, see both sides of the issue. You can end it with “that is one many people are looking forward to understanding when all is revealed to us because for many, whether such and such is true is not clear to them yet, in spite of their testimonies of the gospel”. That way you are not necessarily validating the TBM answer, you are presenting it as open to debate and something to be revealed to us at a later time. Some people will make up their mind about it…
I consciously avoid disagreement about church topics with almost everybody. They have their beliefs and I have mine and I don’t often feel strongly enough to disagree with them. However, there are times when I think that a different point of view should be shared. This post is similar to others, maybe just stated differently. I’ve used the technique of setting up a strawman instead of saying “I believe this” or “you’re wrong.” I was having a conversation recently with a small group of people when a young college student expressed that he didn’t think the Book of Mormon was literally true (a statement I happen to agree with). He also stated that he considers evolution a scientifically established fact (another statement I agree with). A very staunch – but kind – local leader started to kindly tell him that anything that comes from a church leader must be considered correct. I responded and said I think there is plenty of room in the church for people who believe in evolution and a non-literal Book of Mormon – after all why does it matter anyways as long as I’m being a good person and serving others?
My strawman of “there’s room for” XYZ shut up the orthodox leader. Once the two of us were alone he told me that God’s truth is always true I responded along the lines of “you can’t tell a college student to disbelieve science” and I opined that “the church has to come up with better answers than God is always right” if we’re going to keep youth in the church.
I guess I try to disagree by stating ideas rather than attacking.
Unfortunately people inside and outside of the church tend to listen more to people with stature or in leadership callings. Even the most eloquent 17 year old might get into trouble disagreeing with much older local leader like a bishop or a stake president.
I don’t see how your response to the leader was a straw man argument. A straw man argument is a rendition of someone else’s argument, but weakened to the point it is easy to knock down (like a straw man, as opposed to a real man). Your argument was your own argument. Can you clarify what you meant? The approach seems interesting but I am not sure I completely understand it yet. I agree that this is probably not a strawman argument. What I believe Roadrunner meant was that he declined to stake a personal claim to the issues espoused by the college student and instead went with “there is room for differences” approach. There are some good comments in this thread. I can’t wait to disagree with someone at church so I can practice a few of these. 
nibbler wrote:There are some good comments in this thread. I can’t wait to disagree with someone at church so I can practice a few of these.
I disagree with your approach on this, nibbler.A friend of mine is thinking about using some of these strategies…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.